I feel the hebrews should be put in. Can anyone argue that they haven't had a tremendous impact on world history? First off, Jesus was jewish, as were all of the original christians except for luke, who was a doctor (:lol: think about it, the only one that wasn't jewish was a doctor). Was Christianity influential? if you argue not, get your head examined. The jews were a tremendous power in the middle east during the time of david, and were a true world power during the reign of solomon. The jews controlled so many aspects of world society, even after they were exiled from their land and their temples destroyed. They controlled the arts in germany up until WW2, they controlled the economy throughout the middle ages. Einstein was jewish. Oppenheimer was jewish. So many other great brains were jewish. (the reason for that is, through the study ethic that the jews acquired, they passed, in their dna, a genetic memory to their descendants that makes them OCD when it comes to studying.) Do you really think that they shouldn't be included after all that? I admit, that might sound biased, but still, doesn't it contain a kernel of truth? Anyway, post your ideas for civs you want in civ 5. After all, I believe Firaxis has someone monitoring the Civ5 General Discussions forum, so maybe they'll listen to us.

Can't see any jews neither in Civ III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_III#Civilizations), nor in PtW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play_the_world) and Conquests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_III_Conquests).

Though I suppose they may fit in. Perhaps in a mod or something. Don't have anything against this idea.

On topic: Gran Colombia in some form. Spain and Portugal. And something to fill Australian continent on Earth map.

I though the jews were included in PtW? australia should probably be filled by including netherlands.

It seems to me you were wrong about that, and that link confirms it. It's usually a good idea to double-check before stating anything, no offence meant.

Not sure I understand how does The Netherlands, located in Europe, help to fill Australian vacuum? My knowledge on history of that region is lacking.

because the netherlands colonized australia. Before that it could be populate by minor civs representing the aborigines.

Interesting.
The first recorded European sighting of the Australian mainland and the first recorded European landfall on the Australian continent both belong to the Dutch navigator Willem Janszoon. He sighted the coast of Cape York Peninsula on an unknown date in early 1606. On 26 February 1606, he made landfall at the Pennefather River on the western shore of Cape York, near the modern town of Weipa. During the 17th century the Dutch charted the whole of the western and northern coastlines of what they called New Holland but made no attempt at settlement. In 1770 James Cook sailed along and mapped the east coast of Australia, which he named New South Wales and claimed for Great Britain. Cook's discoveries prepared the way for establishment of a new penal colony. The British Crown Colony of New South Wales began a settlement at Port Jackson by Captain Arthur Phillip on 26 January 1788. This date was later to become Australia's national day, Australia Day. Van Diemen's Land, now known as Tasmania, was settled in 1803 and became a separate colony in 1825. The United Kingdom formally claimed the western part of Australia in 1829.

Separate colonies were created from parts of New South Wales: South Australia in 1836, Victoria in 1851, and Queensland in 1859. The Northern Territory was founded in 1911 when it was excised from South Australia. South Australia was founded as a "free province"—that is, it was never a penal colony. Victoria and Western Australia were also founded "free" but later accepted transported convicts. The transportation of convicts to the colony of New South Wales ceased in 1848 after a campaign by the settlers.
Can't see anything about Australia being colonized by dutch, only about being found by them first. Australians speak english language, they have Queen Elizabeth II on their 5 dollar banknote. And they seem to be colonized by Great Britain.

And even if they weren't, it makes no sense for The Netherlands to start in Australia.

Though I agree with your statement about minor nations, representing natives. Done on this, then.

On topic: Gran Colombia in some form. Spain and Portugal. And something to fill Australian continent on Earth map.

Well, the concept of city states makes for a potentially more interesting Africa/Americas/Australia, even without a major civ in Australia.

This way, rather than as in Civ4 bowling over a paper tiger Aztec, you have to deal with a complex web of alliances/small nations. I imagine it could be similar with Australia, which could be pretty sweet!

I never said start in australia, i said minor civs representing aborigines starting in australia. With the dutch and english vying for control.

I feel the hebrews should be put in. Can anyone argue that they haven't had a tremendous impact on world history? First off, Jesus was jewish, as were all of the original christians except for luke, who was a doctor (:lol: think about it, the only one that wasn't jewish was a doctor). Was Christianity influential? if you argue not, get your head examined. The jews were a tremendous power in the middle east during the time of david, and were a true world power during the reign of solomon. The jews controlled so many aspects of world society, even after they were exiled from their land and their temples destroyed. They controlled the arts in germany up until WW2, they controlled the economy throughout the middle ages. Einstein was jewish. Oppenheimer was jewish. So many other great brains were jewish. (the reason for that is, through the study ethic that the jews acquired, they passed, in their dna, a genetic memory to their descendants that makes them OCD when it comes to studying.) Do you really think that they shouldn't be included after all that? I admit, that might sound biased, but still, doesn't it contain a kernel of truth? Anyway, post your ideas for civs you want in civ 5. After all, I believe Firaxis has someone monitoring the Civ5 General Discussions forum, so maybe they'll listen to us.
Due to the persecution the suffered they were shunted into jobs that allowed them to capitalize on later like goldsmith and banking and tailoring not due to genetics,

If I were following your logic Indian (real ones) are the superior ethnicity in the US, LOLZ,

(If Christians ever attack you for being Jewish I advise you to hide in a Catholic Church)
Well, the concept of city states makes for a potentially more interesting Africa/Americas/Australia, even without a major civ in Australia.

This way, rather than as in Civ4 bowling over a paper tiger Aztec, you have to deal with a complex web of alliances/small nations. I imagine it could be similar with Australia, which could be pretty sweet!

ooh political intrigue *rubs hands in delight*

what do you mean, what's so special about people from india?

This way, rather than as in Civ4 bowling over a paper tiger Aztec, you have to deal with a complex web of alliances/small nations. I imagine it could be similar with Australia, which could be pretty sweet!

ooh political intrigue *rubs hands in delight*
Bring more cannons, problem solved!

Though if it will indeed be possible to destroy mesoamerican native empires with Cortez-like small invading force, backed up by local indians as meatshields, then it would be beyond awesome.

And I really hope that in average game on Earth map, history in general will repeat, well, history. Not counting drastic interference of competent human player, of course. I mean that I don't want to meet Aztec caravels at my Spanish shores.

Random map is free game for everyone, of course. But I really do care about Earth maps.

You're not going to be seeing Israel, you'll be seeing Palestine instead...


Two civs I'd like to see are the Hittites and the Scythians, but I know they have no chance of getting in :(

I mean the ancient state, not the modern one. They have nothing to do with each other, except for location, location, location; as Xienwolf would say.

what do you mean, what's so special about people from india?

Indian Americans have the highest educational qualifications of all national origin groups in the United States. According to the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin, there are close to 35,000 Indian American doctors [16]. According to the 2000 census, about 64% of Indian Americans have attained a Bachelor's degree or more.[4](compared to 28% nationally, and 44% average for all Asian American groups). Almost 40% of all Indians have a master’s, doctorate or other professional degree, which is five times the national average. (Source: The Indian American Centre for Political Awareness.) These high levels of education have enabled Indian Americans to become a productive segment of the American population, with 72.3% participating in the U.S. work force, of which 57.7% are employed in managerial and professional specialties.[17]

We Indians are smart too

We Indians are smart too

I mean the jews, throughout history in general. Most of history, the indians were a bunch of barbarians. And the Indian government is not, shall we say, super-organized.

Most of history, the indians were a bunch of barbarians.
Facepalm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_india). India housed some of most ancient civilizations in the world, which carried their historical heritage for several thousand years, up to modern day. There already was established society there, when majority of the world was, pretty much, in stone age.

This is very rude of me to say, but saying that the Indians were a bunch of barbarians is like saying that the Chinese were a bunch of savages. Please read more on history before saying comments like that.

We barbaric Indians apologize for inventing worthless things like
Chess,
Ironsmithing,
wootz steel,
furnaces,
hospitals,
Fibre Optics,
Indoor Plumbing,
Artillery,
Urban Planning,
Numbers, (decimals, 0, Algebraic Notation)
Veterinary Medicine,

@cybrxkhan, very true, China and India were very civilized

Actually they were talking about American Indians, not Indian Indians. Still, the American Indians - which is in my opinion the most obsolete of the terms to refer to the Native Americans and Ameridinians - did have their achievements do.

Actually they were talking about American Indians, not Indian Indians. Still, the American Indians - which is in my opinion the most obsolete of the terms to refer to the Native Americans and Ameridinians - did have their achievements do.

Actually I believe we were talking about real Indians (snips of posts
Indian (real ones)
what's so special about people from india?
Then I posted Census about people from India
I mean the jews, throughout history in general. Most of history, the indians were a bunch of barbarians. And the Indian government is not, shall we say, super-organized.

So I do believe we were talking about Indians not Native Americans

although, what I was saying does also apply to the native americans.

although, what I was saying does also apply to the native americans.
And what makes Natives Americans barbarians?

well, the definition of a barbarian nation is a nation that is not controlled by a defined code of laws, that govern commoner and monarch alike. The native americans did not posses that, did they?

well, the definition of a barbarian nation is a nation that is not controlled by a defined code of laws, that govern commoner and monarch alike. The native americans did not posses that, did they?

The Iroquois CONFEDERACY would LOVE to have a word with you.

well, there are over 500 federally recognized native american tribes in the united states alone, plus countless more that are either not federally recognized or were wiped out, so i'd say that you can't really group them together anyway other than where they lived. i'm not up on my native american history, but though there were definitely tribes that can be considered barbarian by the definition you gave, there were many that can't.

anyway, i'd to see brazil. gran columbia would be okay, too, but it existed for less than 20 years, if i remember correctly, so chances are it won't be in there.

The Iroquois Confederacy was an alliance of different independent states under a central federal government, similar to the United States, ancient Israel, the EU, and I'm sure there are many other examples. I'm talking about INDIVIDUAL states. The individual tribes of the iroquois confederacy did not have such laws. And when I say Native Americans, I mean in general, not in particular. The Incans have a sucky UU, so there. And on-topic, I believe that the youngest civ in the game should be the americans.

The Iroquois Confederacy was an alliance of different independent states under a central federal government, similar to the United States, ancient Israel, the EU, and I'm sure there are many other examples. I'm talking about INDIVIDUAL states. The individual tribes of the iroquois confederacy did not have such laws. And when I say Native Americans, I mean in general, not in particular. The Incans have a sucky UU, so there. And on-topic, I believe that the youngest civ in the game should be the americans.

Well, America has the worst UU in the game while Huayna and the Quechua are considered one of the best leaders in the game :p But generally, I can't disagree. It's most certainly true that in generalizing terms, that the Native Americans COULD be considered barbarians. In some cases. Not all.

Really? what's so good about the quecha? It isn't that good and it obsoletes so fast that it can only be used for the earliest rushes, which huayna's traits aren't good for; they're more designed for a builder style.

I've been asking for the Vietnamese to be added since Civ 2. Not in the main game of course but in an expansion pack.

The fact that they defeated three major military powers in the 20th century (France, USA and China) should be reason enough. They also defeated the Mongols circa 1280.

So you spend the very early period quechua rushing and then you build for the next 5000 years if you want to. What, exactly, is the problem? Furthermore, a code of laws that govern the commoner and the monarch alike is hard to find. If you mean equally, that would be almost every civilization, with a few exceptions here and there. E.g., a citizen of the United States doesn't have veto power, and therefore the US are barbarians. If you mean, both are governed by them, then absolute monarchies in Europe would dip in and out of barbarism.

well, the definition of a barbarian nation is a nation that is not controlled by a defined code of laws, that govern commoner and monarch alike. The native americans did not posses that, did they?

Well, you see, if you put that as a criteria, then ALMOST EVERY SINGLE CIVILIZATION ON THE PLANET until the last couple of hundred years would be "barbaric". :rolleyes: Rule of law is a concept that not all civilizations really applied or even considered.

Code of laws does not separate between "civilization" and "barbarian". One of the most important traits of a civilization, as opposed to "barbarian" is urbanization, NOT laws. Urbanized societies. If so, a good number of 'native american' groups would qualify as civilizations - the MesoAmerican civilizations such as the Aztecs, Mayans, and Olmecs; the Andean civilizations like the Inca, Tiahuanco, or Huari; and a few others, such as the Missisipians.

Interesting discussion with the barbarians... although I'll stay out of it.

I'd love to see Israelites in Civ V (as mentioned above) and also the Hungarians. The case for having a Jewish civilization is soooo obvious I am not going to make the case here. As for Hungary, I believe that they were important first off as the Huns in Late Roman period (although they are slightly different from modern Hungarians/Magyars) and as a key player (sort of) in the Great War.

The case for a Jewish Civ is not so obvious. Especially not in Civ 5, given only 18 spots. While Israel was important religiously, that is not enough. The other centers of world religion (Arabia, India) had other things going for them, namely Arabia's dominance during the Middle Ages, and India's had many empires and is still a huge power. With 18 Civs, Israel really shouldn't be considered.

I want the Hittites with their three-man chariots!

well, the definition of a barbarian nation is a nation that is not controlled by a defined code of laws, that govern commoner and monarch alike. The native americans did not posses that, did they?

A barbarian nation is...anyone not defined as Roman co-opted from the Greeks, it is a word used by the Romans to describe anyone not of Rome....and earlier by the Greeks.
Though the modern word derives from the Latin.

By your definition, most nations were barbarian until the early 20th century.

On other points. Jewish..hmm not so much, since the dominant Abrahamic cultures were born from the "child" religions and impacted the world in a much more dramatic fashion.

You're not going to be seeing Israel, you'll be seeing Palestine instead...




Palestine is not a civilization.

On topic: I'd like to see Israel (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8926338&postcount=1).

Palestine is not a civilization.

On topic: I'd like to see Israel (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8926338&postcount=1).

Without wishing to seem overly confrontational. In what way has Israel impacted and influenced the world stage?
Before you mention anything religious..let me stop you, Christianity became a force due to the Roman adoption, and Judaism is exactly that a religion.
I fail to see it falling into ,the top 2 for its region, any of three categories as I see them.
Ancient-Classical-umm nope not overly influential, even within it's geographical region.
Medieval-early industrial- hard to say..since it wasn't in existence.
Modern - makes the news an awful lot around the world but beyond its positional significance, not exactly a game-changing superpower.

Without wishing to seem overly confrontational. In what way has Israel impacted and influenced the world stage?
Before you mention anything religious..let me stop you, Christianity became a force due to the Roman adoption, and Judaism is exactly that a religion.
I fail to see it falling into ,the top 2 for its region, any of three categories as I see them.
Ancient-Classical-umm nope not overly influential, even within it's geographical region.
Medieval-early industrial- hard to say..since it wasn't in existence.
Modern - makes the news an awful lot around the world but beyond its positional significance, not exactly a game-changing superpower.
Whether it makes the world stage, is it important? No doubt it would be a plus but to solely judge a civilization based on that wouldn't leave much other choices (like the Zulu or Natives or if we were to expand on that idea then the only civilizations allowed for Europe would be either Germany,England and Russia).

What's wrong with religion? It falls under cultural which is an important concept in the game(or at least one precondition to winning).

For modern, Israel gains status through its technological and educational hub(producing the most scientific papers and businessmen(?) per capita by a large margin).
The only thing missing is medieval-early industrial but hey, America hasn't influenced in either ancient or medieval but they're still there (they make it up in industrial and modern).

Whether it makes the world stage, is it important? No doubt it would be a plus but to solely judge a civilization based on that wouldn't leave much other choices (like the Zulu or Natives or if we were to expand on that idea then the only civilizations allowed for Europe would be either Germany,England and Russia).

What's wrong with religion? It falls under cultural which is an important concept in the game(or at least one precondition to winning).

For modern, Israel gains status through its technological and educational hub(producing the most scientific papers and businessmen(?) per capita by a large margin).
The only thing missing is medieval but hey, America hasn't influenced in either ancient or medieval but they're still there (they make it up in industrial and modern).

I think France, Spain, Portugal, Italy to name a few would disagree. Israel was not a major player even within its geographical region when compared to its neighbors.

Religion as a concept has been removed from the game. So apparently Firaxis does not agree..plus as I stated in another post..the two child religions of Abrahamic origin had a far greater impact.

Ummm, not sure what to reply to that. Since it seems to have completely past me (and I suspect much of the world) by.

As regards America, indeed they make it as modern.

I'll repeat: 18 civs. 6 Ancient-classical, 6 medieval-early industrial, 6 Industrial-Modern. 2 from each of 3 major geographical regions: Europe/Mid-East, Asia/Far-East, The Americas. The two being "game-changers" in their time.

Where does Israel enter on this breakdown ?
Where do many countries?
Most of the lobbying for this nation and that is about NATIONS not civilizations-not "game-changers".

I want the Polynesians and their pirogues,
and the Tupi/Guarani and their Jivaro Warriors!!!

Attacking enemies with Polish Hussars cavalry under Polish flag would be a delightful surprise.

I feel the hebrews should be put in. Can anyone argue that they haven't had a tremendous impact on world history? First off, Jesus was jewish, as were all of the original christians except for luke, who was a doctor (:lol: think about it, the only one that wasn't jewish was a doctor). Was Christianity influential? if you argue not, get your head examined. The jews were a tremendous power in the middle east during the time of david, and were a true world power during the reign of solomon. The jews controlled so many aspects of world society, even after they were exiled from their land and their temples destroyed. They controlled the arts in germany up until WW2, they controlled the economy throughout the middle ages. Einstein was jewish. Oppenheimer was jewish. So many other great brains were jewish. (the reason for that is, through the study ethic that the jews acquired, they passed, in their dna, a genetic memory to their descendants that makes them OCD when it comes to studying.) Do you really think that they shouldn't be included after all that? I admit, that might sound biased, but still, doesn't it contain a kernel of truth? Anyway, post your ideas for civs you want in civ 5. After all, I believe Firaxis has someone monitoring the Civ5 General Discussions forum, so maybe they'll listen to us.

I agree that the ancient Hebrews should be in the game. But this has nothing to do with modern European Jews, who are precisely that ... modern ... a modern construct of the societies they live in, otherwise indistinguishable from the native population. Oppenheimer has less connection to the ancient Hebrews than Yasser Arafat, who was at least a native of the region. Likewise modern Zionism should have nothing to do with any Israeli/Judah civ added. While a state exists today which is called "Israel", it has no continuity with the ancient Jewish state(s) under David and Soloman, and would never be a solid candidate for addition on its own.

Yes, but Christianity and Islam, as children of judaism, would never have occured if jews did not exist. Can you imagine what the world would be like without those two religions?

Besides, Sid Meier's jewish.

I agree that the ancient Hebrews should be in the game. But this has nothing to do with modern European Jews, who are precisely that ... modern ... a modern construct of the societies they live in, otherwise indistinguishable from the native population. Oppenheimer has less connection to the ancient Hebrews than Yasser Arafat, who was at least a native of the region. Likewise modern Zionism should have nothing to do with any Israeli/Judah civ added. While a state exists today which is called "Israel", it has no continuity with the ancient Jewish state(s) under David and Soloman, and would never be a solid candidate for addition on its own.

Didn't I say in a previous post that I mean ancient Israel, not the modern state?

for the last time
JUDAISM≠ISRAEL

fine, fine.

They also weren't even a major power in their area, they aren't
Space filler
Well Known
Powerful in Area/Time
all the Civs fill two-three of those requirements

Didn't I say in a previous post that I mean ancient Israel, not the modern state?

Thanks for the clarification! You were talking about Oppenheimer and Einstein though, who have nothing to do with ancient Israel.

I mean the jews, throughout history in general. Most of history, the indians were a bunch of barbarians. And the Indian government is not, shall we say, super-organized.
i clearly see that only reason for this thread is to develop your racist propaganda.
that jews are great and asian tribes are barbarians :)

what's got all those you have written to do with the game?

No, developing my racist propaganda is only a nice by-product. It's just that apparently alot of people wanted to argue with my racist propaganda so i argue back. If they would just shut up about that then we could get back on-topic. You know, people saying which civs they want in civ5 or possibly one of the expansion packs. (not announced, but we know they're coming).

Back to the topic :)
Any of the new civs will be a great addition to Civ V.
I wish to have more variety (e.g. Tibet but it will make Chinese upset, certainly. So it would not happen.)

For Poland,yes and no. One of the biggest countries in Europe on it's peak,we gave and won biggest medieval battle and things like Vienna and Kirholm,also we sat at Kremlin for some time (one of the reasons,why Russian hates us),which Napoleon failed. Yet we succumbed later, thanks to giving nobility to much rights and failure to choose right guy to rule,for example after Batory's death.

Poland would be hard to implement,as we get conquered and still not defeated,if anybody heard of underground country.:lol:

Back to the topic :)
Any of the new civs will be a great addition to Civ V.
I wish to have more variety (e.g. Tibet but it will make Chinese upset, certainly. So it would not happen.)
we just don't need to go back to the topic here in this thread.
there are many threads discussing who will be the 18 civs already. i will delete my subscription for this one and i reported this thread.

what do you mean by 'reported this thread'?

Which Civ do you want in Civ V?
From West to east... kind of...
Portugal
Spain
Mali
England
France
Dutch
German
Dane/Viking
Swede
Roman
Italia
Poland
Hungary
Romania
Byzantine
Egypt
Zulu
Ethiopia
Ukraine
Russia
Turk
Arab
Persian
Indian
Mongol
Cambodia/Khmer
China
Korean
Japan
USA

That and... Camarilla, chill the hell out! It's not like he's bringing up the Turkish genocide of the Armenians or something.

Again, people, I think Firaxis has someone in PR watching the 'Civ5 - General Discussions' forum. So, what we post here might actually count, if firaxis hasn't already decided on who will be in yet.

Honestly, I think that we need the Ottomans/Turks (Turks is better, but Firaxis will probably still use Ottomans) in the game. They were very important historically, much more so than any Eastern European civs not named Russia or Greece (and arguably Greece, but they can both be in). Furthermore, they haven't had the best representation. Firaxis could put a sub-Saharan African civ in and the Ottomans, giving enough surprise for vanilla Civ 5.

Sid Meier is not Jewish. He's Lutheran.

I want most Modern age civs that are either joined or miss:
-Canada
-Mexico
-Brazil
-Argentina
-South Africa
-Switzerland
-Norway
-Sweden
-Finland
-Poland (lulz)
-Ukraine
-Something to represent all those 'stans
-Australia

Being limited to only 18 civs is...limiting gameplay. Also limit of 18 civs per scenario is also irrational. Max should be 24, at least.

Honestly, I think that we need the Ottomans/Turks (Turks is better, but Firaxis will probably still use Ottomans) in the game. They were very important historically, much more so than any Eastern European civs not named Russia or Greece (and arguably Greece, but they can both be in). Furthermore, they haven't had the best representation. Firaxis could put a sub-Saharan African civ in and the Ottomans, giving enough surprise for vanilla Civ 5.

This, the Ottomans where extremely important and powerful and well known therefore they should be in

Personally I think that saying that Ottomans were equal or possibly more important than the Greeks is a bit of a stretch, but if they were in vanilla Civ I wouldn't complain. Personally I would prefer Arabia and Persia before them, but I think if I had to choose 3 middle eastern civs, Arabia, Persia, and the Ottomans would be them.

IMO, Turks is better because Ottoman was just a part of their history.
Anyway, I'm definitely for their inclusion (in any form)

why Russian hates us
We don't. I've heard that you have various propaganda about Evil Russian Empire where everyone eats catholic kids for breakfast, but in truth russians just don't care about Poland much or at all. We are neighbors, we share history, some of that was violent; it's wise and productive just to live on without hatred.

I want most Modern age civs that are either joined or miss:
-Canada
-Mexico
-Brazil
-Argentina
-South Africa
-Switzerland
-Norway
-Sweden
-Finland
-Poland (lulz)
-Ukraine
-Something to represent all those 'stans
-Australia

Vast majority of countries you name can't be counted as “Civilizations”. Some of them are countries which share majority of their culture and heritage with another, more famous countries. Not many of them did anything important on global scale. Basically, this is mod-fodder, not fitting for official release. Also, lots of them are european, just imagine map of Earth with all these and inevitable others, like Germany. Ugh, talk about cramped.

And it's definitely Turks, not Ottomans. Calling Turks “Ottomans” is just as wrong as calling USA “Bushites” — that clan ruled for some time, and there was some major historical happenings during that rule, but still. Or, if you don't like this example, try to imagine Persia called “Achaemenid Empire” or “Sassanid Empire”.

I'm not saying the Turks should be called Ottomans, I'm saying Firaxis probably will call them Ottomans. And I'm for either a Turkish Civ or an Ottoman Civ in vanilla Civ 5, although Turkish would be preferable.

One problem with calling them "Turks" as opposed to "Ottomans" is that "Turks" can also mean a whole swath of other Turkish groups that each had their own distinct and important impact on history, from the Seljuks to the Gokturks to the Timurids to the Uighurs, for example. Regardless though, I'm certain the Turks/Ottomans are definitely in the game by the first expansion, so no worries about them. :goodjob:

I've heard that you have various propaganda about Evil Russian Empire where everyone eats catholic kids for breakfast.

You came uninvited too many times ;) It's natural,that we see Russia as a threat. We can't answer for many idiots.

We don't...but in truth russians just don't care about Poland much or at all. We are neighbors, we share history, some of that was violent; it's wise and productive just to live on without hatred.

Sorry for bit of reorganization.
That would be relief,yet I'm not daring to believe that.Russians are too good politics and conquerors.
Later part is similar to my feeling toward Russia.


Vast majority of countries you name can't be counted as “Civilizations”. Some of them are countries which share majority of their culture and heritage with another, more famous countries. Not many of them did anything important on global scale. Basically, this is mod-fodder, not fitting for official release. Also, lots of them are european, just imagine map of Earth with all these and inevitable others, like Germany. Ugh, talk about cramped.

Point taken. Still eternal "What XXX achieved to be seen as superior to us?" will arise.

I wish to have Polynesians, Tupis and Inuits. Great examples of the adaptability of mankind.

Areas never covered: pacific, amazonia and polar circle.
Original culture,
UB: houses built on piles, longhouses, igloo
UU: pirogue, jivaro warriors, sleigh

Israel/Hebrew civilization, due to cultural uniqueness and the spiritual impact they had on the world.

If not them, I'd love to see either another Middle Eastern civilization (maybe instead of just Arabia, they could also have Iraq, Jordan, Iran, or even Syria. Hell, I'd take Qatar at this rate... kidding, imagine how dull that'd be) or maybe an African civ we haven't seen before (the Congo seems to be a big fan favorite as far as mods are concerned. Mobutu Sese Seko for Civ5!)

Vast majority of countries you name can't be counted as “Civilizations”. Some of them are countries which share majority of their culture and heritage with another, more famous countries. Not many of them did anything important on global scale. Basically, this is mod-fodder, not fitting for official release. Also, lots of them are european, just imagine map of Earth with all these and inevitable others, like Germany. Ugh, talk about cramped.


I think that is reasonable to count countries that pesgores mentioned as civilizations. Following your definition we should exclude from Americans, which probably will not happen... ;)

Three conditions mentioned earlier seem to be best solution, so if civ is space filler, well known or powerful in area/time.
Most of pesgores's list meet one of those requirements.

I disagree with those making the argument that there is no continuity of Israel and that Israel and Jews are not related.

I would argue that due to cultural and traditional preservation, modern Israeli culture is in many ways similar to ancient Israeli culture. Not to mention the continued presence of Jews in Israel throughout history including middle ages and industrial age. There are no Israeli Holidays, only Jewish Holidays - celebrated in similar fashion by Jews all over the world from Russia to Ethiopia to ancient and modern Israel. The culture of ancient Israel has been preserved through the religion.

So to say that Jews like Oppenheimer, Einstein, Spinoza (influential secular philosopher), and many others have no connection to ancient Israel or were not influenced by Jewish though and culture is ridiculous.

Jews are granted automatic citizenship in Israel. Israeli government actually evacuates Jews from places that are deemed hostile (Yemen, Ethiopia). When the Air France jet was hijacked and brought to Uganda, it wasnt the French who performed the rescue operation. It was Israel. Why? Because Jews were the target of persecution and political violence.

The answer is that both ancient and modern Israel are a Jewish state, governed by Jewish (religious and secular) thought and culture.

Ancient Israel = Modern Israel = Jews

Israel is a rising regional power, precariously perched on a ledge with many wanting to push it off, yet they have survived and becoming stronger, they aren't a regional power YET so they should not be included in core Civ, after they have become a regional power and some time has passed then it is a good time to included them, perhaps Civ X

I vote for no inclusion, when they have proven themselves then we include

The Turks on the other hand, they have proven themselves and as such merit inclusion, I want to see Atatürk, spending one game grinding in the faces of the Greeks, then when victory is near switch sides and drive the Turks off :D

We've already concluded that Israel won't be added. Move on to something plausible, like the English or whatever.

Please change the saying under your name to "Some bitter Jew-boy on Noble."
Just kidding.

Celts. I'm tired of having to wait for expansions.

1 - Their presence in Europe predated virutally all others (almost certainly all others that made it in the game), their area of influence at its greatest extent was as large or larger than the Roman Empire

2 - Some customs and language features remain to influence the later cultures that absorbed or displaced them (in some cases this is a simple as place name origins, but in many it runs deeper).

3 - During the dark ages, it was Celts that reconverted the continent of Europe to Christianity and preserved (alone, to a large extent) the knowledge of Western Civilization.

4 - they do have a popular, modern, independent country (Ireland) and another popular country part of the UK (Scotland. Wales, too, but I think Scotland gets more press.)

5 - the only thing they lack is a unified empire, but since culture plays such an important role now I feel that requirement is less important. Oddly enough, it could be argued using this logic that they really didn't belong in vanilla Civ II (where they were) but instead should have been given space in vanilla III and IV (where they weren't).

The Greeks are easily more important then the Ottomans/Turks. They made the foundation of western society, along with rome.

I'd be fine with just having the 18 civs from Vanilla Civ4, to be honest. The Hebrews have never been a united powerful nation or kingdom compared to almost all the other civs in Civ4.

The celts!

They sacked Rome!
Host of languages came from them.
And all the other reasons the guy above me gave. :)

Celts. I'm tired of having to wait for expansions.

1 - Their presence in Europe predated virutally all others (almost certainly all others that made it in the game), their area of influence at its greatest extent was as large or larger than the Roman Empire

2 - Some customs and language features remain to influence the later cultures that absorbed or displaced them (in some cases this is a simple as place name origins, but in many it runs deeper).

3 - During the dark ages, it was Celts that reconverted the continent of Europe to Christianity and preserved (alone, to a large extent) the knowledge of Western Civilization.

4 - they do have a popular, modern, independent country (Ireland) and another popular country part of the UK (Scotland. Wales, too, but I think Scotland gets more press.)

5 - the only thing they lack is a unified empire, but since culture plays such an important role now I feel that requirement is less important. Oddly enough, it could be argued using this logic that they really didn't belong in vanilla Civ II (where they were) but instead should have been given space in vanilla III and IV (where they weren't).
OK, because this thread has gotten much to nice again and I am feeling froggy...
1) So what, they did very little with their presence... little lasting impact
2) So what, many cultures can say that (see #1)... they were basically outclassed and forgotten.
3) This is not even close to correct. Have you heard of Byzantine? That is where much info was stored. When it was conquered and the Greeks had a diaspora as a result, it kick started the Renaissance. Re: Christianity... what are you talking about? The Dark Ages were periods of countries becoming Christian for the first time, and the Irish/Celts had little to do with it.
4) So what... a country, and part of another. There are many civs who can make that claim that haven't ever been released (Ukraine for example).
5) Isn't this pretty important to be considered a civilization rather than a culture?

The problem with calling the Ottomans simply Turks is that they aren't the only Turks, nor the only significant Turks. Yes, today a Turk almost always refers to a Turkish-speaking inhabitant of Turkey, which is, yes, the successor of the Ottoman Empire; but that's not the case historically. As lets be honest, the Ottoman Turks were culturally more like the Rum (i.e. the "Byzantines") than the people from central Asia who gave them their language (at least by the modern era).

The problem with calling the Ottomans simply Turks is that they aren't the only Turks, nor the only significant Turks. Yes, today a Turk almost always refers to a Turkish-speaking inhabitant of Turkey, which is, yes, the successor of the Ottoman Empire; but that's not the case historically. As lets be honest, the Ottoman Turks were culturally more like the Rum (i.e. the "Byzantines") than the people from central Asia who gave them their language (at least by the modern era).

It's like calling the British Commonwealth England, I guess.
I figure Ottoman is the best name for it, since when you think of Turkey has a gigantic power, you think Ottomans. Saying Turkey makes you think more along the lines of the modern nation of Turkey, which... isn't honestly all that deserving of inclusion itself (UU: Gary Busey in Valley of the Wolves:Iraq.)

It's like calling the British Commonwealth England, I guess.
I figure Ottoman is the best name for it, since when you think of Turkey has a gigantic power, you think Ottomans. Saying Turkey makes you think more along the lines of the modern nation of Turkey, which... isn't honestly all that deserving of inclusion itself (UU: Gary Busey in Valley of the Wolves:Iraq.)

I wouldn't make that parallel with Britain/England. Think of it as Germans and Germanic. The people who rule the Ottoman Empire at its height are nothing like the Gokturks, the Khazars, the Seljuks, and so on. The people who rule the Ottoman Empire are practically Byzantines who speak Turkish (and eventually Persian), practice Islam, and are more like Europeans than central Asian nomads.

Then, maybe.. just Turkey? ;)

So, I want more ancient civilization. For example, Harappa, Elam, Crete, Hittites, Etruria, Sogdiana, Hurrians. And it's interesting to give some barbarian civilization a chance. Like Thracians, Scythians, Goths or Xianbei.

So, I want more ancient civilization. For example, Harappa, Elam, Crete, Hittites, Etruria, Sogdiana, Hurrians. And it's interesting to give some barbarian civilization a chance. Like Thracians, Scythians, Goths or Xianbei.
Good luck... you can always mod those in yourself, which I am willing to bet your will have to. Wasn't "Crete" called Mycanae?

^No, that was Minoa. Mycenae was on mainland Greece, and (at least according to traditional scholars) had a more militaristic culture than the more peaceful and trade-oriented Minoans.

Ah yes... thanks for the correction. I wasn't 100% sure of the name.
Regardless, already represented by ancient Greece.

I wish to have Polynesians, Tupis and Inuits. Great examples of the adaptability of mankind.

Areas never covered: pacific, amazonia and polar circle.
Original culture,
UB: houses built on piles, longhouses, igloo
UU: pirogue, jivaro warriors, sleigh

longhouses are more north america than amazonia. brazil'd be better.

My pick are

America
Canada
Mexico
Cherokee
Apache
Inuit
Aztecs
Maya
Olmecs
Inca
Brazil
Argentina
Chile
Ireland
Scotland
England
France
Gaul
Germany
Spain
Portugal
Netherlands
Denmark
Norway
Sweden
Finland
Russia
Poland
Rome
Medieval Italian city states that don't contradict the roman city list
Yugoslavia
Hungary
Greece
Thrace
Byzantines
Turks
Assyria
Israel
Phoenicians
Babylonia
Persia
Arabia
Iraq
Egypt
Nubia
Moors
Mali
Ethiopia
Ashanti
Kongo
Swahili
Zululand
Madagascar
India
Nepal
China
Korea
Mongolia
Japan
Thailand
Cambodia
Vietnam
Java
Australia
Fiji
Tonga
New Guinea
Dinosaurs

My pick are

America
Canada
Mexico
Cherokee
Apache
Inuit
Aztecs
Maya
Olmecs
Inca
Brazil
Argentina
Chile
Ireland
Scotland
England
France
Gaul
Germany
Spain
Portugal
Netherlands
Denmark
Norway
Sweden
Finland
Russia
Poland
Rome
Medieval Italian city states that don't contradict the roman city list
Yugoslavia
Hungary
Greece
Turks
Assyria
Israel
Phoenicians
Babylonia
Persia
Arabia
Iraq
Egypt
Nubia
Mores
Mali
Ethiopia
Ashanti
Kongo
Swahili
Zululand
Madagascar
India
Nepal
China
Korea
Mongolia
Japan
Thailand
Cambodia
Vietnam
Java
Australia
Fiji
Tonga
New Guinea
Thrace
Byzantines
Dinosaurs

Listing half of Europe, all of continental North America, all of Southeast Asia and the Far East, and the ABC powers of South America isn't exactly a list......I'd also argue that Chile is on it's way out the door as any type of power or cultural influence, even regional.

Listing half of Europe, all of continental North America, all of Southeast Asia and the Far East, and the ABC powers of South America isn't exactly a list......I'd also argue that Chile is on it's way out the door as any type of power or cultural influence, even regional.

Historically Chile has been important to South America.

I'm Peruvian, and Peruvians and Chileans don't get along even today for the dumbest thing(in Civ4 terms, Chile DOWed on Peru while at Pleased/Friendly), so take what I say how you like, but I'm going to try and state it without bias. Chile has played a delicate balance game to even survive as a state, being the last part of the Viceroyalty of Peru to be broken off from the Viceroyalty, it then had to play a delicate balance game with Argentina and Peru, and to a lesser extent Bolivia, to survive, at which point they declared war on Bolivia out of aggression to stop a union between Peru and Bolivia AKA ALTO PERU at the time. From that point out, Peru and Chile are in economic war in guano and copper until a certain general coups in Chile and another in Peru, and the Peruvian one prepares for war but decides to back down. From that point on, it's been mutual dislike. Rough summary of Chilean foreign relations. Not seeing how it's important......really, no South American country with the slightly possible exception of Brasil could be considered.

Sooooo from a South Americans point of view no South American civs should be included in civ5?:dunno:

Only the Inca Empire, but I'm Peruvian, so It'd be cliche for me to say so. :p But I'm an ardent supporter of the Inca Empire. It's South America's Rome, but better. We did it on mountains with little trade, our technology was only beginning to kick up speed at the arrival of the Spaniards, a superior opponent. We divided our empire, and reunited. We where bigger than Rome at it's peak. Who knows where the Inca empire could have headed. All Incas had a brief struggle for the title of Inca, but the empire chugged on united and conquering. I'd say the Inca Empire is the pinnacle of New World civilization. So in short, yes, but I didn't want to sound 1-sidedly nationalistic. But when someone mentions Chile as important, it makes my Peruvian blood full of state propaganda steam a little. :p Even more so when someone brings up Gran Colombia, a 10-year confederation that was a complete failure. THEN they also proceed to not even add the Inca Empire to their list. It burns a little inside when they do this, the assumptions and guessing about South American history burnnnnnnnn.....

Actually, now thinking of it, one European civilization I'd like to see in Civ is Italy. If they had the will to put the Byzantines in, or the Holy Roman Empire, perhaps they can put the Italians in. The Italians during the late Medieval and Renaissance periods played an important role in terms of culture, science, politics, and economics.

I guess the only reason they aren't in is because they're too 'similar' to Rome... But it'd be a nice surprise if they were in one of the expansions.

Actually, now thinking of it, one European civilization I'd like to see in Civ is Italy. If they had the will to put the Byzantines in, or the Holy Roman Empire, perhaps they can put the Italians in. The Italians during the late Medieval and Renaissance periods played an important role in terms of culture, science, politics, and economics.

I guess the only reason they aren't in is because they're too 'similar' to Rome... But it'd be a nice surprise if they were in one of the expansions.
I agree


Rome
Medieval Italian city states that don't contradict the roman city list
Byzantines

Mad Man, you missed out Wales!! *shakes fist*

I'm Peruvian, and Peruvians and Chileans don't get along even today for the dumbest thing(in Civ4 terms, Chile DOWed on Peru while at Pleased/Friendly), so take what I say how you like, but I'm going to try and state it without bias. Chile has played a delicate balance game to even survive as a state, being the last part of the Viceroyalty of Peru to be broken off from the Viceroyalty, it then had to play a delicate balance game with Argentina and Peru, and to a lesser extent Bolivia, to survive, at which point they declared war on Bolivia out of aggression to stop a union between Peru and Bolivia AKA ALTO PERU at the time. From that point out, Peru and Chile are in economic war in guano and copper until a certain general coups in Chile and another in Peru, and the Peruvian one prepares for war but decides to back down. From that point on, it's been mutual dislike. Rough summary of Chilean foreign relations. Not seeing how it's important......really, no South American country with the slightly possible exception of Brasil could be considered.
So Hispanic South America sucks?

Medieval Italian city states that don't contradict the roman city list

Why?
Only the Inca Empire, but I'm Peruvian, so It'd be cliche for me to say so. :p But I'm an ardent supporter of the Inca Empire. It's South America's Rome, but better. We did it on mountains with little trade, our technology was only beginning to kick up speed at the arrival of the Spaniards, a superior opponent. We divided our empire, and reunited. We where bigger than Rome at it's peak. Who knows where the Inca empire could have headed. All Incas had a brief struggle for the title of Inca, but the empire chugged on united and conquering. I'd say the Inca Empire is the pinnacle of New World civilization. So in short, yes, but I didn't want to sound 1-sidedly nationalistic. But when someone mentions Chile as important, it makes my Peruvian blood full of state propaganda steam a little. :p Even more so when someone brings up Gran Colombia, a 10-year confederation that was a complete failure. THEN they also proceed to not even add the Inca Empire to their list. It burns a little inside when they do this, the assumptions and guessing about South American history burnnnnnnnn.....
Inca deserve to be in, they were awesome, powerful, and are well known
Actually, now thinking of it, one European civilization I'd like to see in Civ is Italy. If they had the will to put the Byzantines in, or the Holy Roman Empire, perhaps they can put the Italians in. The Italians during the late Medieval and Renaissance periods played an important role in terms of culture, science, politics, and economics.

I guess the only reason they aren't in is because they're too 'similar' to Rome... But it'd be a nice surprise if they were in one of the expansions.
Italy was a bunch of city states then, Thats like calling the Taifas of ~1000 CE Al Andalus!
Mad Man, you missed out Wales!! *shakes fist*
Wales
UU: Sheepshagger
:mischief:

Mad Man, you missed out Wales!! *shakes fist*
nope I don't miss them, and quite frankly I don't think anybody else does:p

Why? Italy was a bunch of city states then, That's like calling the Taifas of ~1000 CE Al Andalus!:mischief:

So ancient Greece was also a bunch of city states as was the Aztecs, the Mayans and the Germans through most of there history but there still in there, so whats the difference?

They should make a fruit based civ.

special power: no unhealthiness in all cities (built of veges)
special unit: killer, dancing bananas

The one civ no one has yet mentioned is the power of the mighty fruit. Be your strategy to overwhelm your opponents with juicy delicious pomegranates, or stale durian fruit, the almighty fruits will overcome all baskets attempting to hold them in from their righteous path of global domination. Their vege cities will stand the test of time, and their dancing bananas, renowned the world over, will not cease until the world is theirs! No wicker basket, nor sack can contain the power...prepare! :banana::banana:

They should make a fruit based civ.

special power: no unhealthiness in all cities (built of veges)
special unit: killer, dancing bananas

The one civ no one has yet mentioned is the power of the mighty fruit. Be your strategy to overwhelm your opponents with juicy delicious pomegranates, or stale durian fruit, the almighty fruits will overcome all baskets attempting to hold them in from their righteous path of global domination. Their vege cities will stand the test of time, and their dancing bananas, renowned the world over, will not cease until the world is theirs! No wicker basket, nor sack can contain the power...prepare! :banana::banana:
:lmao: seriously?
The Aztecs subjugated a bunch of people so a main group was in charge
Maya? removal
Germany? most of their history? but Germany is young only ~130 years old IIRC and one country for much of it (If you count East/West as one)

Germany as the modern state is young, just like the UK, but no one is suggesting that the German peoples weren't there since before the time of Charlemagne.

You're not going to be seeing Israel, you'll be seeing Palestine instead...


Two civs I'd like to see are the Hittites and the Scythians, but I know they have no chance of getting in :(

id vote for Palestine and :goodjob:

Anyone remember learning about the Goths? They are barbarian like, but they did have a government and a monarch. They put a big beating on the Holy Roman Empire.

I also think Vietnam, Canada, and Poland should be in it.

Anyone remember learning about the Goths? They are barbarian like, but they did have a government and a monarch. They put a big beating on the Holy Roman Empire.

I also think Vietnam, Canada, and Poland should be in it.

Goths and Vietnam? Maybe. I'd kinda doubt Vietnam, they'd probably stick to the Khmer, as they'd also probably make a generic celt/barbarian civ in place of Goths as well.
Canada and Poland? Kinda doubt for similar reasons (well, as far as Poland is concerned.) Instead of adding Poland, they'll probably keep a USSR leader for Russia.

I'd like to see Danes instead of Scandinavians or vikings.

Goths and Vietnam? Maybe. I'd kinda doubt Vietnam, they'd probably stick to the Khmer, as they'd also probably make a generic celt/barbarian civ in place of Goths as well.
Canada and Poland? Kinda doubt for similar reasons (well, as far as Poland is concerned.) Instead of adding Poland, they'll probably keep a USSR leader for Russia.

How is that an instead of? Poland wasn't part of the USSR, and the argument for its inclusion isn't based on its status within the last few centuries but its status as a Renaissance power.

Either Austria or the Holy Roman Empire.
I think the house of Habsburg needs to be represented in civ5. Perhaps through Spain?

How is that an instead of? Poland wasn't part of the USSR, and the argument for its inclusion isn't based on its status within the last few centuries but its status as a Renaissance power.

Poland -was- under heavy Soviet influence, and I figure the Eastern Block (so this also probably means Czech, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Albania seem unlikely too) nations are represented already (to Firaxis, at least) by having a USSR leader for Russia, and I kinda doubt Renaissance-Poland would find its way into Civ5, except maybe as the Surprise Civ (kinda like Civ4's Mali, which came completely out of left field.)
Keep in mind, I'm not saying Poland isn't worthy or anything. Just going by the standards that Firaxis seems to have in terms of civs. Normally they go for the "Oh yeah, that civ that did x, y, and z" type civs. Hence why we don't have, say... Italy, the Huns ("You mean like, Atilla?"), or really any African civs beyond Mali, Zulu, Egypt, and Ethiopia, or any modern South American civs.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for adding Poland. Personally, I kinda just want as many civs as possible, as long as they all get equal treatment (I'm tired of some civs coming across as... half-assed. I'm looking at you, "Native America". You and your totem pole, retarded AI, and even worse city names.) I just kinda doubt they'd make the cut for the same reason why Firaxis prefers going for the huge encompassing civs (Holy Roman Empire) rather than the noteworthy countries that were part of those civs (or grouped in with those civs.)

As a friend put it, "Taiwan and Tibet are China, the Franks are the HRE, and everyone in the middle east is Sala-freaking-din."

Either Austria or the Holy Roman Empire.
I think the house of Habsburg needs to be represented in civ5. Perhaps through Spain?

If that were the case, it could be done through Spain or Germany with Charles V. But no dynasty is that special ... Charles V or anyone else should get in on their own merits.

Tupi/Guarani is a native Brazilian tribe...

I thought the Guarani where more centered in Paraguay? But did the Tupi actually have cities? I remember reading that missionaries saw the Tupi commit cannibalism and baptized it out of them. Now, I'm not saying it's something to be cherished, but it does make them unique, but there's a reason almost all civilizations 'looked down' on cannibalism. I'm fairly sure they lived in tribes. I don't really think they're deserving. Although if we're looking for another South American civilization that isn't right next to the Inca Empire, then the Guarani get my vote over the Mapuche.

I alson believe the hittits should be in civ 5. I think they have a chance. I think there have native america, they where alot of hassal for the USA, even know the indians are casuing the us trouble.

They will probably combine all the indian tribes, like apache, sioux, navajo, iroqouis, and etc

They were all along the Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia, etc... But when the portugueses invaded Brazil and killed, converted and slaved the Tupis they only remain more in Paraguay.

Tupis have some sub tribes and one of those is the Tupi-Guarani or just Guarani and Guaranis had several sub tribes, each one similar but with a different language and customs and most of them isn't cannibals maybe a small subtribe, but not the major tribe Guarani.

And they had settlements with more than 1000, but just a few and most even don't consider that a city, just a group of houses in the jungle.

Even though I'm a Finn, it would be great to see Sweden in the game. Sweden was quite a player in European history until they self-destructed their armies and the Swedish empire spanned large tracts of land. Gustav Vasa would be a nice leader to play (holding his nice rapier in hand, naturally).

Also, naturally, Vikings could easily be combined with the Swedes (but no horned helmets, please). A raider unit for ancient times, hakkapeliitta for the later unit. Strengths in trade/commerce and one of whatever suitable options Civ5 will offer and you have a nice civilization to play.

Even though I'm a Finn, it would be great to see Sweden in the game. Sweden was quite a player in European history until they self-destructed their armies and the Swedish empire spanned large tracts of land. Gustav Vasa would be a nice leader to play (holding his nice rapier in hand, naturally).

Also, naturally, Vikings could easily be combined with the Swedes (but no horned helmets, please). A raider unit for ancient times, hakkapeliitta for the later unit. Strengths in trade/commerce and one of whatever suitable options Civ5 will offer and you have a nice civilization to play.

It's another reason why we need leader-dependent (rather than civ-dependent) city-lists. You'll never ever get Sweden as a civ while the Scandinavians are there, and neither should you; but adding Gustavus Adolphus as another leader of the Scandinavians, with a different city-list, could work.

My pick are

America
Canada
Mexico
Cherokee
Apache
Inuit
Aztecs
Maya
Olmecs
Inca
Brazil
Argentina
Chile
Ireland
Scotland
England
France
Gaul
Germany
Spain
Portugal
Netherlands
Denmark
Norway
Sweden
Finland
Russia
Poland
Rome
Medieval Italian city states that don't contradict the roman city list
Yugoslavia
Hungary
Greece
Turks
Assyria
Israel
Phoenicians
Babylonia
Persia
Arabia
Iraq
Egypt
Nubia
Moors
Mali
Ethiopia
Ashanti
Kongo
Swahili
Zululand
Madagascar
India
Nepal
China
Korea
Mongolia
Japan
Thailand
Cambodia
Vietnam
Java
Australia
Fiji
Tonga
New Guinea
Thrace
Byzantines
Dinosaurs

I had over 68 picks:eek:, I should consolidate my picks a bit but I've already decided to keep the Americas as is. So what should get cut to keep the list a healthy 50?

Poland -was- under heavy Soviet influence, and I figure the Eastern Block (so this also probably means Czech, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Albania seem unlikely too) nations are represented already (to Firaxis, at least) by having a USSR leader for Russia

There is no common Czech-Polish-Russian-Romanian-Bulgarian Civ, Soviet influence's been lasting for about 45 years. Most of those nations had had their own states for about X centuries before... Looking at them only from XXth cent. point of view is not suitable for wide historical perspective game, isn't it?

However I can imagine Slavic Civ (so there would be common ethnic roots- Slavic tribes) with Croatian, Czech, Polish, Serbian, Ukrainian and Russian cities, and few - not only Soviet ;) leaders. Present situation, enforces stereotype that "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic" is only Russia...

Well, every Civ V player would like to play as historical leader of his home country, and crush its neighbours :), however that seem to be wishful thinking...

I don't think that a Slavic civ would make it. The Slavic nations don't really like each other and if such a civ is included there would be some controversy. There would be a lot of crying from people all over Eastern-Europe especially from the South-Slavs, Croatians and Serbs. I'm not saying that Russians, Ukrainians and Poles wouldn't be angry for being together but they didn't fight a war less than 15 years ago. Better keep it greater Russia (Russia, Belarus and Ukraine) and add some Slavic civilization in an Expansion pack. ;)

The Mysterious Nestorian Christian Empire of the East lead by Prestor John!

I don't think that a Slavic civ would make it. The Slavic nations don't really like each other and if such a civ is included there would be some controversy. There would be a lot of crying from people all over Eastern-Europe especially from the South-Slavs, Croatians and Serbs. I'm not saying that Russians, Ukrainians and Poles wouldn't be angry for being together but they didn't fight a war less than 15 years ago. Better keep it greater Russia (Russia, Belarus and Ukraine) and add some Slavic civilization in an Expansion pack. ;)

The Slavs though are not just some linguistic abstraction. They were once one people, and spoke the same language (right up into the 12th century). I think the pre-conversion Slavs would be a viable civ, though not a very high priority one. Possibly people might prefer early Slavic states like Great Moravia, the Slavic predecessor to the Kingdom of Hungary. Though I think Hungary itself or Poland are bigger priorities. :)

because the netherlands colonized australia. Before that it could be populate by minor civs representing the aborigines.
This is the first I've heard the Dutch colonising Australia...
(You're thinking South Africa)

I don't think that a Slavic civ would make it. The Slavic nations don't really like each other and if such a civ is included there would be some controversy. There would be a lot of crying from people all over Eastern-Europe especially from the South-Slavs, Croatians and Serbs. I'm not saying that Russians, Ukrainians and Poles wouldn't be angry for being together but they didn't fight a war less than 15 years ago. Better keep it greater Russia (Russia, Belarus and Ukraine) and add some Slavic civilization in an Expansion pack. ;)

*cough*Russia is a Slavic civilization*cough*

I know that Russians are Slavs, that's why I said Greater Russia and included most Eastern-Slavs in it. You probably misunderstood my statement because I said a Slavic civ should be added in an Expansion. Well, I meant that Russia should be the only Slavic civ to be included in Vanilla and then other Slavic civs could be added in Expansion packs. While South-Slavs and Central-Slavs (Poles, Bohemians and Slovaks) are very different in culture from Russia they should get their own civs. Ukraine and Belarus on the other hand are very similar too Russia, I'm not saying they are the same I'm just saying that they are similar. But it's all up to Firaxis whether they want to add more Slavs or not, I personally support adding some representation for the Central and South-Slavs. ;)